Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Balboa Park/Wiki Culture Crawl

Talk page banner and category for new and improved content?

@Fuzheado: Do you think it would be helpful if I created a template to add to talk pages of new and improved articles? I could have the template automatically add articles to the category "Articles created or improved during the 2016 Wiki Culture Crawl", or similar. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topics

Some of the articles about the Balboa Park museums aren't very good. There is also a need for additional images in some cases. Do we want to add a "wiki loves Balboa Park" photo project to this for encouraging uploads of stuff to commons? I realize we have some complex issues of copyright and freedom of panorama on some works, but...? Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly add poor quality museum articles to the list of suggested articles. I did add Wikipedia:GLAM/Balboa Park/Image requests to the bottom of the page, but I am not opposed to making a stronger ask for image uploads. Any ideas? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of AfD

I think that we need to be sure to focus on the importance of providing excellent sources to establish topic notability and avoid articles created here from being deleted. I strongly recommend having people sandbox new articles and have autopatrolled editors move them to mainspace. That way, the editor gets creator credit but avoids the cesspit of AfC and AfD, where I have been spending time these last couple of months. There's a lot of knee-jerk deletion that goes on there. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance?

designed to be the largest one-day collaboration ever between Wikipedia contributors and the GLAM - What sort of attendance is expected? Since everyone had to register for this when registering for the conference, might it be better to draw from registration to populate the "participants" list? Right now, with only 4 names, and open for anyone to add their name, it seems like it would set inaccurate expectations for what sort of event to expect? Or maybe it's me who misunderstands? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was registration via the conference main page. Contact the organizers for more info! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 08:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? I know. I'm registered. :) I'm saying that this on-wiki page's list of participants (only 4 at the time I wrote that) seems discordant with the "largest one-day collaboration ever" claim. That's not a dig, of course, and in fact I'm adding to the problem because I registered but don't have my name here. :) The point is that it may be preferable to have a full list of participants generated from registration info (everybody had to answer whether they planned to attend the Culture Crawl when they registered for the conference), making for a list of participants that better reflects the type of event it is. Granted, that would still omit the GLAM professionals participating in this event that are not participating in the conference (a number I imagine is rather high). Just a thought, though -- I just came across this page and was surprised to see a short list. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complicating matters is that fact that Wikipedians who value privacy may not wish to disclose on-wiki that they will be in a certain place at a certain time. Also, although registration is required for in-person attendance (presumably so organizers can ensure they've reserved a large enough venue), virtual participation is presumably welcome without registration. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a while, there was no link between the conference wiki and ENWP, so hopefully more people will start to sign up as they see a link to the English Wikipedia page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]